home
RSS
My Take: Catholic Church should reverse opposition to in vitro fertilization
Carolyn and Sean Savage with their kids.
May 10th, 2011
09:28 AM ET

My Take: Catholic Church should reverse opposition to in vitro fertilization

Editor's note: Sean Savage is coauthor of "Inconceivable: A Medical Mistake, the Baby We Couldn't Keep, and Our Choice to Deliver the Ultimate Gift" and a cradle Catholic who lives in Sylvania, Ohio, with his wife and three children.

By Sean Savage, Special to CNN

According to the Roman Catholic Church, the only moral route to conceiving a child is through sexual intercourse. As a Catholic, I find the church's position to be discriminatory against couples who have medical conditions that prevent them from conceiving in that manner.

I never intended to challenge the church when my wife and I pursued in vitro fertilization in an effort to expand our family after a decade of unsuccessful infertility treatments. We loved our two boys and we'd always wanted a big family. After a successful IVF procedure in 2007 brought us our daughter in 2008, we tried again so that we could fulfill our commitment to give every embryo we created a chance at life.

When a fertility center made a critical error by transferring another couple's embryos to my wife, we were thrust into an unusual pregnancy and eventually found ourselves at the center of an intense media storm. On September 24, 2009, the day Carolyn gave birth to a very loved baby boy, who was immediately turned over to his genetic parents, the Catholic Diocese of Toledo released a statement to The Toledo Blade condemning IVF as "morally unacceptable."

Because we were the focus of the news, we felt as though the diocese was really condemning us.

The statement hurt Carolyn and me tremendously. We had hoped for the church's support and prayer on one of the hardest days we've ever faced.

Carolyn and I have always believed in our stewardship responsibilities to the church. I'd given thousands of hours over the years to coaching youth through my local parish, have raised funds for Catholic churches and schools and have given charitably to church causes. Carolyn had dedicated her career to teaching and working as a principal in Catholic schools.

Follow CNN’s Belief Blog on Twitter

Instead of support, the church branded us in a very public way with the apparently shameful letters IVF. Why couldn't the church recognize our journey for what it was - an affirmation of the sanctity of life? Their negative response motivated me to look closer at the issue.

I believe there is an ethical path a couple can take when pursuing IVF and I ask the Roman Catholic Church to consider adopting a new doctrine that provides moral guidance for Catholic couples on how to do so.

While I share many concerns with the Catholic Church about abuses within the science of IVF, I disagree with a number of points the church makes on the issue. The church spelled out its stance in Donum Vitae, a 1987 doctrine on biomedical issues released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - an office then led by Cardinal Joseph Ratziner, who is now Pope Benedict XVI - and in 2008's Dignitas Personae, another influential church document.

The original doctrine states that "even if it (IVF) is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is deprived of its proper perfection; namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act." Dignitas Personae echoes this position by stating "human procreation is a personal act of a husband and wife, which is not capable of substitution."

I am personally opposed to the intentional destruction and discarding of unwanted embryos and understand why this is condemned by the church. But to state that a child born of IVF is less perfect than a child created through sexual intercourse is absurd. Is the church truly claiming that our beautiful and innocent daughter, conceived through an IVF procedure, is somehow "less" because of how her physical life began? In her, Carolyn and I see God's precious creation.

Of course, the creation of a child through a conjugal act is the preferred method because it is the most natural, least expensive and least stressful. But that shouldn't mean it should be the only acceptable route to conception.

What about Catholic men and women who have legitimate medical conditions, like endometriosis, which Carolyn has and which caused infertility despite efforts at surgical intervention?

Carolyn and I would have been happy to save thousands of dollars and a decade of emotional ups and downs by conceiving the "old-fashioned way," but that wasn't possible. We turn to medicine for a litany of medical maladies and impairments, but infertile Catholics are supposed to avoid treating a medical condition which prevents them from building or expanding their family?

Yes, adoption is a wonderful option for the couples who decide it's right for them, but adoption should never be forced on anyone.

The Donum Vitae doctrine also states that "in vitro fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo."

The term "illicit" has such a grave connotation and to use it in this context seems quite out of place. Should a couple that seeks a child through IVF, and that does so with a commitment to allow every embryo a chance at life, be considered to be participating in an illicit activity?

The most perplexing and pejorative language from Donum Vitae is that "marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child... the child has the right, as already mentioned to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents and has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of conception."

Babies born of IVF are here because their parents loved, respected and longed for these children well before conception. These children could not get here through the conjugal love of their parents and it took a very deep love, respect, and commitment to pursue the medical treatment needed to conceive through IVF. There is no doubt in my mind that God is working through loving parents and ethical doctors to allow these children to come into this world.

Now for the ironic in Donum Vitae: "Scientists are to be encouraged to continue their research with the aim of preventing causes of sterility and of being able to remedy them so that sterile couples will be able to procreate in full respect for their own personal dignity and that of the child to be born."

So although there are solutions for sterile couples today, those should not be sought because they are outside of the conjugal act? If Carolyn and I were to wait until the scientific advances described in this statement before pursuing additional children, we would not have our daughter - or the opportunity to welcome two more children into this world this August.

If science can advance to the point that all procreation can happen within the confines of the conjugal act, that would be incredible. But what do couples do while waiting the years and probable decades before these advances come to fruition?

The challenge for the church is to see the beauty in the science and that there is a path within IVF that is worthy of God's grace and approval.

The church's presence in this field could help limit abuses and disregard for human life through advocacy, education, and support. Perhaps it could provide counselors as couples pursue IVF and face many technical and nuanced decisions. And maybe the church could help couples navigate even more complex situations, like embryo adoption.

Carolyn and I were victims of the worst IVF mistake on record. But we remain proponents of the science and understand the good that is done by God through ethical physicians in this industry. We value and support the sanctity of life, even if it's created with the help of IVF.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sean Savage.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Opinion • Pope Benedict XVI • Sexuality • Technology

soundoff (1,281 Responses)
  1. El Kababa

    The theological issue is the soul of the infant.
    Does an infant conceived outside of the womb even have a soul?
    Perhaps those individuals are merely soul-less bodies or organic robots.

    Instead of challenging the Church, it would be better to leave the Church.

    May 11, 2011 at 8:56 am |
    • Jerry

      Well, I agree with that last sentence.

      May 11, 2011 at 10:29 am |
  2. Jobie

    Man will never be able to do what God must do. At the time of conception, cells divide and multiply...and eventually turn into little toes and fingers, brain cells, skin, a digestive system, etc. The human body is a marvel, and only God can put one together. Once I came to this conclusion, I had no problem going forward with IVF to help conceive our healthy 9 lb baby. The initial process that happens at IVF will only scratch the surface of what God must ultimately do in the creation of a human being.

    May 11, 2011 at 8:22 am |
  3. JimmyJam

    Lots of harsh words in here, how about showing some compation for thier situation instead of telling them how foolish they are for having a religion. Agree or dissagree, who cares, we are all made the exact same way, fertilized egg, cell division, growth.

    May 11, 2011 at 8:13 am |
  4. Christian Fools

    Why is IVF wrong and not every surgery and medicine invented by man? All you righteous, pious Christians – when your child or wife needs surgery would you let them die?

    There's no value to this Christian stance. None – its them butting in where they don't belong. Some day we'll look back and find it unbelievable they felt this way – and we may have to look up what "Christianity" even was once their cult dies off.

    May 11, 2011 at 7:37 am |
  5. Sara

    If your wife was over 35 at the time you were trying to conceive, there is a reason God did not let her pregnant. Women are not meant to be fertile indefinitely. If you truly believe in God, then it was his will for you to not have another child. Medical intervention for illness/disease is completely different than your "need" to have child. You didn't need that child and God was telling you that. IVF is wrong.

    May 11, 2011 at 7:09 am |
    • Bananarama

      Nobody NEEDS a child. But I sure do get tired of people who have no difficulty conceiving smirking at me and telling me God doesn't want me to have children. What's Christian about that?

      May 11, 2011 at 9:43 am |
  6. Jim

    Love your own life. Make your own decisions. Male your own happiness. Why would anyone relay on a belief system that, at it's center, is focused in an imvisible man who loves in the sky? Foolishness.

    May 11, 2011 at 6:30 am |
    • Tom Piper'Sr.

      @Jim...While "Male" instead of make and "imvisible" instead of invisible can be understood and considered as typos, "relay" instead of rely is quite unacceptable.

      Had my son Tom Tom read your (erroneous) post, definitely, he disowns you as an Atheist already.

      May 11, 2011 at 8:54 am |
  7. sparkysgirl

    My husband and I have been trying for years to have a baby. I find it ignorant and hurtful when someone says something stupid like "its gods will," "everything happends for a reason," or the comment the retard made about how people should just have intercourse instead of IVF. I am tired and frustrated. I am so worried about getting pregnant that I don't want to bother trying anymore. I feel like less of a woman and a failure as a wife because I havent been able to get pregnant. As a woman it is just something I thought would just happen when I was ready. It is painful to sit next to mothers or see pregnant women. It has gotten to the point where I don't want to look at babies anymore. If there is a God who would wish this heartbreak on anyone. He is cruel and sick and he is no god of mine. I think these people make wonderful parents and should not be judged because of how they were blessed. I would be lucky for just one child.

    May 11, 2011 at 4:13 am |
    • A mother

      Since you're so self-involved and use the word "retard" in describing those who don't agree with you, I hope to God you never become a mother. If you did get pregnant, your child might have Down Syndrome, and then undoubtedly you'd choose to abort and try again.

      May 11, 2011 at 8:22 am |
    • Erin

      Wow...hypocritical much? Using the word retard?

      May 11, 2011 at 9:15 am |
  8. dancing frog

    Religion is a personal choice. As for me, I would never embrace a religion that allows child abuse, or any abuse for that matter, prays to statues, needs someone to intercede, or .. comes into my bedroom to tell me how, what, when, etc. Fact is, the Catholics preach no birth control, yet AIDS is rampant in Africa, when wearing a condom would prevent most transmission of STD's. And, has anyone noticed, children born in some of the poorest countries (Catholic religion the majority) have the lowest life expectancy? Many of these people are dirt poor, while the Catholic church is the richest in the world! And, they still want more. Also, I would not allow any religion to tell me what to read, where I can go, who I can see/allow in my life, who I can/cannot marry, how many children I am supposed to have or not have & on & on.
    I already have a government trying to do most of the above. I have a beautiful little grandaughter who is a result of IVF. My daughter & son-in-law tried for 3 yrs to have a child the 'old fashioned way', she kept miscarrrying, & her 'clock' was fast running down. It was heartbreaking for them. Yes, fertility drugs were tried, to no avail. Both my daughter & son-in-law are, Catholic. Adoption is NOT for everyone, & not everyone qualifies for adoption. It takes years, in most cases, to adopt a child. It's no body's business in the 1st place, least of all, the/any church which turns it's back on their people when their support is needed the most. How, might I ask, is this the Christian way to treat your parishioners? I was taught to turn the other cheek .. condemn not, least ye be condemmed. I would think, a person's religious affiliate should support their members in decissions of this matter ... how they conceive their children. Celibrate life, & the fact medical people are able to help those who choose this manner of conception. Maybe they are playing, God, but, I don't feel the church needs to be involved, it's between those who choose IVF & their personal conscience & their beliefs, whatever they are.

    May 11, 2011 at 2:55 am |
  9. NWDiva

    Ah, when will The Church realize that God gave us the smarts to come up with IVF? If one truly believes that God is all powerful, they must believe he (or she) gave us the ability to accomplish all the things we do. To disallow IVF is akin to saying, "You can't use baby seats in cars, because it's not natural!" Or "No Chemo! It's man made." I really think God must shake his/her head in sadness about stuff like this. There are so many other truly important things for the church to worry about other than how their dedicated congregation goes about joyfully enlarging their families.

    May 11, 2011 at 2:18 am |
  10. Q

    Haven't read all the posts here, but has anyone suggested that choosing IVF over adoption really speaks to a deep human desire (though certainly not universal) to pass along their genes into subsequent generations? One might think it could reflect "selfish genes" at work here...

    May 11, 2011 at 2:00 am |
    • Makeaneffort

      Hey Q you seem reasonable
      Think that one through. Maybe it is a limitation of language but one needs to make a lot of realty strange and storybook assumptions to ingest that description. Assumptions stranger than those of any religious faith.

      May 13, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
  11. Ard162

    I have sympathy for anyone with infertility. I myself suffer from infertility. However, if this couple truly wanted to expand their family, why not adopt? If they are true catholics then i am sure they oppose abortion and encourage those seeking abortions to consider adoption. I feel it is selfish and hypocritical of them to go against their religious teachings and then demand that their religion change its doctrines to suit them. I am not catholic and i am pro choice, and when i found out i was unable to conceive, my first thought was adoption, not ivf. If they believe that god has set forth a path for them, they should believe that the ivf mistake was divine intervention. Religion is not a buffet, you cannot pick what you like and discard what you dont. If that is the case then a person who questions certain beliefs in their chosen or born into religion should look else where for a denomination or beleif that matches theirs.

    May 11, 2011 at 1:36 am |
  12. tallulah13

    Count me among those who wonder why this couple, with two sons who look healthy and almost grown, actually need another child? If they still feel the need to nurture a child, why not adopt one? It would be compassionate and loving and do more for future generations than simply adding another person to our overpopulated planet would.

    May 11, 2011 at 12:59 am |
    • Kim

      Adopting a child is not that easy. I know a young Catholic couple (he's infertile) who have been trying to adopt for 5 years. Private services, Catholic Charities, and every other available means have been (and continue to be) used. Not that many children are being placed into adoption agencies/services these days; most mothers opt to keep the child.

      May 11, 2011 at 7:16 am |
  13. Jack

    My wife and I have a daughter as a result of IVF and it is because of IVF that I am now convinced life begins at conception. It's ironic that my new strong stance against abortion is the result of a practice the Roman Catholic Church condemns.

    May 11, 2011 at 12:39 am |
  14. jesse

    This question is for all the believers; Why do you insist on following unproven belief systems that someone else has created? Wouldn't you be more happy if you created your own? Are you really so gullable to believe the people who wrote scriptures of the creations of any gods are telling the exact truth? Did you ever stop! STOP! and think that maybe all these people who wrote these stories just might be telling a big EFFIN WHITE LIE? The tables are turning! We are turning the tables! The non-believers have spent 2000 years being persecuted! NOT ANYMORE! WATCH WHAT HAPPENS...

    May 11, 2011 at 12:08 am |
  15. Christian

    Oh, and another thing.

    What about the dignity and rights of the other child? Little baby "Oops" or whatever you wish to name him or her?

    Did your wife wet-nurse the child, giving them the valuable nutrition and antibodies they needed to start life strong and healthy? Did it occur to you to even offer?

    Did your wife give the child the benefit of her super-charged hormonal system in extra cuddles and bonding that comes naturally in the first months of life?

    Did you let the child's father sniff around your wife to activate the hormones that make him extra super-special nice for the first few months after the mother has born a child?

    Did the child's mother get to experience the "bearing in labor" that was _her_ right and glorious duty to bear for her child?

    Selfish, stupid, as well as an unjust denial of multiple parties natural rights.

    Yeah – awesome job, there, all around.

    May 11, 2011 at 12:06 am |
  16. Adelina

    Atheists could not refute God's existence in science filed, so they attempt to discredit Christianity in history field, but it's even harder – in fact both are impossible. Atheists' foolishness is like a cancer that keeps appearing in human society.

    May 11, 2011 at 12:00 am |
    • jesse

      And,,, ahhh,,,your not? I am laughing so hard right now! So, ah... where is your god or gods now? Hiding in the boogeyman closet maybe? The spreading of persecution towards people that search for facts through science. DO you use a microwave oven? How about drive a car? Live in a house? Watch T.V? Take pictures with a camera? Use a telephone? Use a refridgerator? How about a computer? It is quite amusing that the same person whom thinks Athiest are a cancer is very willing to use inventions inspired by science...hmmm...I wonder how many scientists are athiests? Look it up. It is quite a few. It is amazing how much hypocracy and persecution goes on in the "GOD" community. Why all the hatred and malace? Why all the neglect? why all the anger? Why all the story telling? Why all the bloody wars for the past 2000 years? WHy? Why? Why? Why? Athiest are cancer? I think not...

      May 11, 2011 at 12:33 am |
    • jesse

      The burden of proof always lies on the person or persons stating a claim. Not the other way around. Other whys it would be an endless,non-sensical argument. How about this, i will make up a story of a chocalate chip cookie god and you need to prove he does not exist! Pretty silly is it not? So why is your gods any different? THEY ARE NOT! If they are, PROVE IT! The burden of proof lies on you all you guys! sooo,,, where is it?????? I didn't think so! Check-mate! I wish you happiness not malace. please research hard and learn to be nice to others, especially Athiests. LOL

      May 11, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Sam

      One does not use science to disprove something. You cannot prove a negative.
      I have never seen a shark in the ocean. I can probably sit and stare at the ocean all day and never see one. Just because I never see one does not mean sharks don't exist. All it takes is one shark to be produced to prove me wrong.
      I have never seen evidence of god's existence, but I will not say "There is no god" Rather, I'll say "I believe there is no god." But all you need to do is show one bit of hard evidence to prove me wrong/convince me.
      Simple, eh?

      May 11, 2011 at 2:27 am |
    • myklds

      We are free to express our belief in something in this blog without being obliged to prove it, aren't we?

      May 11, 2011 at 4:21 am |
  17. Reality

    Actually, Catholicism/Christianity is based on the embellishment and "mythicized" life of a simple preacher man aka Jesus. For example based on many contemporay and thorough reviews of his crucifixion, there was no trial for Jesus. The following update of the Apostles' Creed summarizes said studies:

    The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated and based on the studies of NT historians and theologians during the past 200 years)

    I might believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven.

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
    ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen-----–-------------

    May 10, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
    • Reality Check

      Just a simple statement for your consideration: It should at least be a point of reflection for yourself to realize that your entire belief system (as expressed here) is based completely in REACTION to a belief system held by billions of people that co-exist with you now and have existed in the course of 2000 years. Again, my point is simply, if you happen to be a rational (i.e. reflective person who uses their faculty of reason which adheres to basic logic... which in fact your statements would indicate you are) then my statement to you should be a point of serious consideration. My implication is: if one realizes that, fundamentally speaking, their belief system has no foundation on its own but rather depends completely on being placed in contrast to another belief system that does in fact have some sort of organic point of reference (i.e. arises from cultural, historical, human considerations of transcendental possibilities), then that person should have the ability to realize their "belief system" is not a belief system at all but rather, at its essence, a "disbelief system." In other words, such a person depends on the existence of the belief system they are contradicting as much as those who live by that belief. Now, if you've followed me to this point, I have a suggestion for you: I imagine that you are someone who probably wants to be happy. Happy in some real, fundamentally purposeful sort of way. That you are someone who enthusiastically proclaims what you've shared with us on this board because you sincerely believe you are helping people see the truth, and thus are working for happiness; happiness for yourself and for any others who you can help "see the light." Well, if you've been able to realize that your belief system has in fact no foundation on its own and is simply a "disbelief system" that requires the belief of others so it can exist in constant contradiction to that faith, then maybe you realize this way of thinking is NOT in fact working toward your happiness because there is NOT in fact any truth in it. You can know there's no truth in it simply from the logic of the realization I've mentioned above: to be specific: the TRUTH of anything in actual reality, is not something that exists fundamentally as a contradiction to something else... but the Truth stands on its own. I'll stop here. I hope my words have been helpful for you.

      May 11, 2011 at 4:14 am |
    • Reality

      Reality Check,

      As with most of us, you are "victim" of your random birth:

      "John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to an accident of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when. Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.

      The Situation Today

      Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews. Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed." – Somerville

      It is very disturbing that religious narrow- mindedness, intolerance, violence and hatred continues unabated due to radomness of birth. Maybe just maybe if this fact would be published on the first page of every newspaper every day, that we would finally realize the significant stupidity of all religions.

      May 11, 2011 at 8:12 am |
    • Tim

      Reality,
      grow up.

      May 11, 2011 at 9:35 am |
  18. hillplus

    May God bless you, your wife and your lovely family. My heart broke for you during your sore trial and I am impressed with the loving and moral choice you made!

    May 10, 2011 at 11:32 pm |
  19. Jason

    the catholic church is a joke. they blaintly disobey what the bible says. Matt 23:9. Acts 5:29.

    May 10, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Adelina

      Jason, Matthew 23:9,10 are in a strict, absolute sense and it does not apply to the Catholic practices. They know God is the only Divine Father, of course.

      May 10, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
    • Reality

      Jason,

      Matt 23: 8-10

      "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. 9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father–the one in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. "

      These passages, as per many contemporary NT scholars, were not uttered by the simple preacher man, aka Jesus. They are single attestations found no where else in scriptures and therefore historically inauthentic.

      e.g. See Professor Gerd Ludemann's conclusions in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 228.

      May 10, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
  20. Ernest

    Interesting read but as a "christian" dont you beleive everything happens for a reason? How can you call discrimination? If you or your wife cannot produce a child that is obviously Gods will. So im not that into religion but based on those teachings i have to agree. If it cant happen naturally then it must be part of his plan so therefore who are you to challenge that? To get a "workaround"? And this is why I stopped listening to the church and hypocrites like you who preach a higher moral yet cant even follow or accept what you beleive

    May 10, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Deb

      Ernest, you raise a very valid point....one I could argue myself.

      However.....

      Applying that same logic, one would have to also abolish treatment for diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer....the list is endless....because those are also "God's will" and treatment involves human intervention. Where would you draw the line? Perhaps God GAVE us the doctors and GAVE THEM the knowledge to treat any and all of these human imperfections. After all, it is an imperfect world. Just because something does or does not occur doesn't mean it's God's Will. God's Will is actually the "miracles" that correct these imperfections.....which he perhaps is doing through the advancements in IVF in addition to medical advances in other disease processes as well?

      May 11, 2011 at 4:02 am |
    • Cindy

      God gave us doctors and science for a reason...and it's not just to sit around and let whatever happen, happen...sometimes we have to do something. I am surprised and disappointed by the Catholic church's stance in this area.

      May 11, 2011 at 4:10 am |
    • Epidi

      Isn't there an old saying that God helps those who help themselves?

      May 11, 2011 at 6:45 am |
    • doctore0

      Close the catholic church down.
      In, say ~50 years, humans will say we were insane crazy for respecting religion

      May 11, 2011 at 6:52 am |
    • jimtanker

      @Deb

      You're absolutely right. Christians that go to a doctor, take medicine, or even take their car in to get reparied are in one of two catagories. Either they dont have enough faith in their god or else they are too big of sinners and their god just wont help them and answer their prayers.

      May 11, 2011 at 6:53 am |
    • Sara

      Ernest: I agree with you 100%.

      Deb: illness/disease are completely different than a couples "need" to have a child. The 10 years of infertility were a sign from God that they were done having children, their family was made just as he wanted it to be. My guess is she was over her child bearing days, which is 35, after 35 risk of complications are much greater, eggs are getting older and fertility is dwindling. Women are not meant to be fertile for their entire life.

      May 11, 2011 at 7:13 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.